FUEL TOUR — The Price of Exposure

FUEL TOUR -- The Price of Exposure

“. . . See, these days, you can market anything. It’s not the product, it’sthe delivery. With the right demographics, you can sell the Aleutians airconditioning.”

From an ad in Vanity Fair, above a picture of four attractivetwenty-somethings sitting on a couch, wearing loosely fitted pants insimilar shades of gray:

“DOCKERS (R) Khakis is sponsoring FUEL to help present the personal visionand style of these young, inspired filmmakers, all of who, like DOCKERS (R)Khakis, believe in independent thought. Who believe in themselves and theirvision. Who have something important and personal and unusual to tell us.And so, we will listen.”

And so they did. Audiences and media from 13 cities across the USA came outto see what all the fuss was about in the traveling foursome of Dockers’“young, inspired filmmakers.” But as good-humored and preppy as theyappeared in their Dockers fashion spread, the Fuel Tour participants aresurely not smiling because of the money they received. So far, not one ofthe directors has seen a dime of profit. But, money isn’t everything, isit?

Financing a cinematic Lollapalooza is no easy task and credit should begiven where credit is do. Suzanne Myers, a founder of Fuel, originally cameup with the idea as an alternative means of distribution that many foundinspiring and bold. Yet, in this distribution model, money was not a primegoal – audiences were.

To cover expenses Myers sought corporate sponsorship. At one point theentire fate of the project was placed in jeopardy, following aneleventh-hour pull-out by The Sundance Channel as the primary sponsor ofthe tour. Organizers quickly re-grouped and secured the necessarysponsorship funding, in this case The Independent Film Channel. Then, alongwith Dockers, came Details, GQ, and Vanity Fair. “I thought they werepretty generous for a first time venture,” says Myers, “We sort of startedlike you would with a movie. We had a minimum budget and then a higher morecushy budget and it ended up being closer to our minimum budget; we wereactually pretty tight. What happened was they all came in at differenttimes giving a certain amount. We hoped to get more and more sponsors andthen by the end, we didn’t get more.”

One of the filmmakers who felt the brunt of the lack of funding waswriter/actor Steve Grant of CLC’s “Delicate Art of the Rifle“,self-proclaimed “captain of the ship”, who did much of the driving on thetour. “Originally, everything was going to be paid for,” Grant explains,“We were going to receive payment for having gone on the trip. There wasgoing to be this king’s ransom for a per diem, and over time, that becamereevaluated to where we got 20 bucks a day, which meant I wasn’t starving,but I couldn’t go out and get drunk at night either.” Although Grantpraises Myers for her efforts, he also felt that there could have been astronger push for more money. “Ask for the moon,” says Grant, “If you getcheese, well, you figure they’re going to lowball you, so you should askfor insane amounts of money.”

The Dockers ad is case in point for Grant’s dilemma. Fellow CLC member,director D.W. Harper was flown from North Carolina to Los Angeles for theDockers ad photo shoot. Was the cost of producing and placing theadvertisement disproportionate when compared with the money the filmmakerswere given to operate the tour?

“Where is the money going?” asks Ruby Lerner of AIVF, the grassroots filmorganization, speaking on the subject of sponsors, “Is the money going toartists? Is the money going to promotion?” Lerner suggests that filmmakersmay have more leverage against big corporations than initially thought.“Not enough of us are willing to say, okay, you want to spend $50,000 onpromotion, then you have to match that with X amount of money for artists’fees.”

It is generally accepted that sponsors are a necessary evil for any filmexhibition event, whether it be a start-up film festival or in this case, afilm tour, but Lerner offers this advice, “It would be healthier if we couldget more public support, more foundation support, so that the corporate supportis a piece of the package, but not wholly dependent on it. That’s the shame aboutthe moment that we’re in. There doesn’t appear to be anywhere else to go to getthe money.”

When one is dealing with corporate sponsors, there is always the risk ofcompanies forcing their agendas on to the event. For the filmmakers whoparticipated in Fuel, opinions differed on the amount of sponsorinterference that took place. While Grant said, “On the one hand, it wasuncomfortable, like I felt an obligation to get up there and go, ‘Thanksfor all our great sponsors for putting on the tour!’ and on the other hand,the tour was possible because these people gave us all this money and onthe other hand, I’m driving around in a mini-van for $20 bucks a day.”Chris Smith, from “American Job” offered, “We made a film that we reallybelieved in and really wanted audiences to see and this was the opportunityfor that to happen. I was willing to do anything and everything that theywanted me to do to publicize the tour.”

Hannah Weyer, director of “Arresting Gena“, felt the presence of sponsors’agendas and promotions and noticed the sponsors “were very much on [thetour manager] to do things on their behalf when she could have been therefor the filmmakers.” Suzanne Myers, however, credits the sponsors forgiving a lot of additional support, for example, “Dockers printed up a lotof stuff for us and IFC did a lot of dubbing and editing and made tapes forus; they did a lot of in-kind stuff as well as giving us money.”

In contrast, Grant says, “The sponsors honestly, in spreadsheet land, don’tgive a shit about independent film. They’re going, ‘We have money. Theyneed money, but they’re cool. We are not cool, but we have money. We cantrade cool for money and everybody wins.'” Did everybody win on the FuelTour? If the purpose was to stir up publicity for the films, their crewsand Fuel itself, judging from the amount of press they received, Fuel did,in fact, burn. Whether they carved out a new model for film distributionthat compensates the filmmaker remains to be seen.

“The four of us came together, and well, we can’t get the million dollar[distribution deal],” says Grant, “We can’t even fucking break even, butwhat we can get is exposure.” And exposure they did get, screening tonumerous cities, and spreading the independent word to print and radiooutlets, including a prestigious spot on NPR. “I don’t think American Jobwould have ever got to 11 markets if it wasn’t for the Fuel Tour,” saysChris Smith, one of the more satisfied in the bunch, “It also increases ourchances of getting better deals in other areas .”

The economic future of Fuel remains uncertain, but the spirit behind it isjust as strong as when it began. The filmmakers have not seen anytheatrical receipts and a video deal remains hanging, but the enthusiasticresponse Fuel received in such places as Columbus, Ohio and Providence,R.I. makes Myers and the rest confident that Fuel will happen again. Weyer,the most reclusive director of the four, said, “You do these Q & A’s withpeople who are interested in art and that was really special. That wasreally rewarding. It kind of gave me ‘fuel’ to keep doing this.” Travelingfrom city to city, Steve Grant perhaps ultimately sums up the benefit ofhaving taken part in Fuel: “I felt like a rock star.” Maybe next time, thisstar won’t have to drive the bus.

[The Fuel tour opens in New York City tonight at The Screening Room. For moreinformation, visit the tour website at:www.fueltour.com]